On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation >>>> rules for people in that way I'm afraid. >>>> >>> Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to >>> answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird. >>> >> Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages >> legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate >> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not. > I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that > large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when > I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for > reviewers. > > It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes > and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't > help anymore. > > And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email > seems pretty low these days. >
Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in general.
